<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="generator" content="Osso Notes">
<p>On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, 00:39:54 EST, Paul van der Vlis <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:
<br>> Op 06-08-12 02:12, Bryan Baldwin schreef:
<br>> > be that if Debian met all my points it might still not be considered
<br>> > free by nature of how well integrated contrib and nonfree are. This
<br>> > isn't a problem for free distributions that have never maintained any
<br>> > nonfree software.
<br>> Not sure. E.g. Trisquel could create a "trisquel-nonfree.org" what would
<br>> make it very easy for people to install closed source software.
<br>A repository done by the project but not the distro?
<br>I feel this falls under the name confusion bit if the free distro guidelines. If it doesnt perhaps that section will need some wording clarification.
<br>> > On 08/06/2012 01:04 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
<br>> > Debian is not simply choosing to have nonfree software for personal
<br>> > use, they are publicly distributing nonfree software. I'm not saying
<br>> > they should be stopped if that's what they want to do. I'm saying that
<br>> > no one who says its free should be taken seriously. Its intellectually
<br>> > insulting when something insists that I am confused when I don't.
<br>> I agree with you here. In my opinion Debian should not distribute
<br>> nonfree software. But I don't have problems when Debian would work
<br>> together with people or an organization who does, e.g. by giving access
<br>> to a build farm.
<br>With my hardline hat on id suggest that debian -devs- should be abled to work with that org, not debian distro or project.
<br>Compomising hat isnt fussed ;)